Thx, folks…didn’t mean to cause concern…guess I went into a stupid moment…forgive me!

janeto

06/26/2013 at 8:30 pm

😀 I thought it was me!! Thanks mom for all u do!!!

donchais

06/26/2013 at 8:34 pm

LOL, just me having a senior moment! 🙂

Snafu

06/26/2013 at 9:11 pm

happens to the best of us! 😉

Wendy

06/26/2013 at 9:41 pm

Thanks Donchais! You’re the best!

Hello everyone! 😀

Anna

06/26/2013 at 9:56 pm

Hey & well, just little old me piping in (you know me) to say it’s beyond belief to know I’m not the only one who lives with senior moments! I feel home again…with normal people! 🙂 Thank you donchais.
Hope everyone is doing as well as possible out there in world-land!!!
Miss ya guys… 🙂

janeto

06/26/2013 at 11:08 pm

Hey Anna! I replied to u on the other page, but u probably didn’t see it. Hope all is well with you too!

Regina

06/26/2013 at 10:57 pm

I miss you. I may not write so often as the others but I love the sandbox and I read all the comments. Today after saw the motion from that two stupid asstorneys for Jodi I was thinking that will be hard to digest this alone without your inputs and my playmates opinions. I glad you are ok and back to us. You are the best. Thank you

YAY! I thought maybe Donchais decided to keep only the regular bloggers and I got the ax! LOL Glad to see that isn’t the case. So how does everyone feel about the latest motion filed by Wobo?? Seriously — they really think that laypeople can’t see what is “especially cruel?” REALLY???

Wow….thank goodness!! You are real….we thought we came out of a group comma and dreamt (sp??) all this!! We kept checking and checking only to keep seeing the same page with no changes and sat here dumbfounded. Glad to hear you’re ok and we’re not crazy!!

Ohhhh thank god Donchias!! I thought i was either blocked from this site or that it shut down. I was in a panic and searching everywhere online to try and find out what happened! So glad you are ok and that the sandbox wasn’t stolen. Phew! 😦 I missed you guys so much. I had no one to discuss Stabitha with. Welcome home everyone…

Ci Ci's Circle

06/26/2013 at 11:56 pm

donchais :Thx, folks…didn’t mean to cause concern…guess I went into a stupid moment…forgive me!

Wow….thank goodness!! You are real….we thought we came out of a group comma and dreamt (sp??) all this!! We kept checking and checking only to keep seeing the same page with no changes and sat here dumbfounded. Glad to hear you’re ok and so are we!!

Hoping this nightmare of a trial will be over soon!

ps…..this may duplicate…the first one got away from us but we don’t know where it went!! Guess some things don’t change…heh heh heh!

Ci Ci's Circle

06/27/2013 at 12:00 am

ByeByeJA :
YAY! I thought maybe Donchais decided to keep only the regular bloggers and I got the ax! LOL Glad to see that isn’t the case. So how does everyone feel about the latest motion filed by Wobo?? Seriously — they really think that laypeople can’t see what is “especially cruel?” REALLY???

What’s the latest?? We’ve been out of the loop lately. Could you bring us up to speed please? We know that the last we heard the judge delayed her decision for an extension to 2014. Now what??

ByeByeJA

06/27/2013 at 12:07 am

Wild About Trial Tweeted this link earlier today:

PHOENIX (AP) – Jodi Arias’ attorneys have asked a judge to vacate the jury’s decision in her murder trial that the 2008 killing of her boyfriend was “especially cruel,” a finding that allowed the panel to consider the death penalty.
Defense attorneys argue in their motion that the definition of “especially cruel” is too vague for jurors with no legal experience to determine what makes one killing more cruel or heinous than another.
The filing also appears to challenge a landmark 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found a defendant has the right to have a jury, rather than a judge, decide on the existence of an aggravating factor that makes the defendant eligible for capital punishment.
The high court determined that allowing judges to make such findings violated a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury.
“Given the apparent difficulties that judges faced (prior to the ruling) in applying the statute in a uniform, consistent manner, juries are understandably even less equipped to do so,” defense attorney Kirk Nurmi wrote in the motion filed late last week.
Arias was convicted of first-degree murder May 8 in the stabbing and shooting death of Travis Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home. About two weeks later, the same jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether to sentence Arias to life in prison or death.
Nurmi argues the term “especially” when coupled with cruel, heinous or depraved in a murder case, was first used when judges had the authority to determine factors that could make a defendant eligible for the death penalty, before the 2002 Supreme Court ruling.
“By including the word ‘especially’, the statute was designed to be employed by a judge, one presumed to have the depth and breadth of experience to identify those first degree murders ‘above the norm,’” he wrote.
Nurmi added that under current law, “layperson jurors” are left to “muddle through” the definition, with a suspect’s life in the balance.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery called the motion a standard procedural move.
“Those are defense attorneys doing their job advocating for their client,” Montgomery said Wednesday. “Obviously, we disagree.”
Arias’ attorneys have not returned repeated calls from The Associated Press.
The defense motion was filed as prosecutors are preparing to pursue the ultimate punishment again in a second penalty phase with a new jury. Arias’ murder conviction will stand. Prosecutors also have the option of taking the death penalty off the table and avoiding another trial, meaning Arias would be sentenced to life in prison.
Taxpayers footed the bill for Arias’ court-appointed attorneys throughout her nearly five-month trial at a cost so far of nearly $1.7 million, a price tag that will only balloon if the case moves forward.
Montgomery has declined to publicly release the cost his office incurred prosecuting the case, citing a court order that seals some, but not all, materials involved in the trial. The county, meanwhile, has provided regular updates on Arias’ defense costs.
Regardless, Montgomery said the cost to taxpayers will play no role in whether prosecutors decide to resolve the case without another trial, or move forward with the lengthy process of seating a new jury in an effort to secure a death sentence. That process would involve retreading testimony and evidence to bring the new jury up to speed.
The next hearing in the case is set for July 18.

Ci Ci's Circle

06/27/2013 at 12:39 am

Thank you for the update!! Now let’s see….so far the Duh-fence has tried:

Self-Duh-fence
Crime of Passion
Several Mis-trial motions
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Two failed attempts to remove the Cruelty aggravator
Third motion to remove the Cruelty aggravator

Good grief……give it up!! You failed you morons! Lay people know when they see Cruelty!! Seems the only ones who don’t see it is the Duh-fence! TA tried to crawl away from his attacker while she continued to stab him and he felt every blow!! When that didn’t work she slit his throat and then shot him just to make sure!!

This next attempt reeks DESPERATION…..she’s goin’ down and they know it!!

Can someone explain the new wobo motion? I’m so out of the loop without the sandbox updates. I have been completely lost.

Did anyone hear anything about the Lifetime movie at all. I DID NOT give Lifetime any ratings for their stupid ass Wobo movie, however, my mom watched it when it replayed…she gave me a play by play of the events in the movie because she was so pissed. What a joke! The way it portrayed how they met was completely inaccurate. Little bits and pieces were thrown in that never happened or things that did happen were flipped around. (Ie; email to Lisa from Jodi was instead a note on her car in the movie. Movie had Jodi decorate Travis’s home and made his bedroom girly, etc) The movie has her killing him the day she was moving back to Yreka when she came to say goodbye to him. They Did not portray how she premeditated the murder with the whole trip to Mesa nor the trip to Utah after she killed him…there were other things too i can’t remember right now. Anyone else hear this too?

Bad acting
Low budget
Totally embellished (like the actual facts of the case were not good enough?!)
Didn’t follow the actual timeline of events
Scenes not factual to the case:
>>JA decorating his home – BS BS
>>JA approached TA in the men’s room when she first met him – WHAT?!
>>JA was living in Mesa when she murdered TA – NOT!

They said that it was sooooo ass backwards it was stupid. Totally pissed them off because they took soooo many liberties with the actual facts. They felt that if they were going to stoop so low to show this movie prior to the case being over they could have at least stuck to the facts! So glad we didn’t waste our time to watch it!!

Thank you guys!! I had no one to vent to about this. Others i spoke with were saying stupid things defending the movie and the events!! I know this case inside and out yet they challenged me with the facts.

**They did not sleep together in Vegas the night they met.
**The sex after the baptism was supp to be her in her baptism clothes being bent over and forced anal sex…NOT her in regular clothes having full on sex with him
**She didn’t entertain at his house.
** The whole photo taking/porn video was all out of sequence
**There was no true accounts of her planning his murder and setting out to do it. She just happened to have a gun.
**The PLL trip was Cancun but in the movie it was Hawaii.
**There were errors with the murder scene.
**Jodi did not try to run Travis and Lisa over in the parking lot as portrayed in the movie.

There were others too but you get the point. Why say based on a true story and actual events? It’s BS!!!

MsDeb

06/27/2013 at 12:40 pm

After reading all the reviews, I’m so glad I didn’t watch that movie…as was already stated, “The trial was good enough” for me!

Thank you for re-opening the sandbox. I think we were all concernced – wasn’t sure if it was OK to email, so just kept searching and searching . . . well worth the wait.

Hope you got some rest (maybe?) and welcome everyone back. Missed all of you!

TY, TY, TY . . .

jad

06/27/2013 at 6:19 am

WOW!!! I am SO GLAD you are still here. It was nerve wracking, wondering if something happened. Well, here we are, and it is late. So, this message won’t be too detailed. All I can say is that I have done a lot of research lately.

The good news is that the Alexanders can stop this mockery of justice. They can use Arizona Law. The Law is that of A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A), except they only have ten days from the filing of the Order that violates their Rights [either statutory or constitutional]. The Hearing was June 20, 2013, so (if the Order was filed that day) they only have until this Monday to make their request. The research has been done on this, but the paper is rather lengthy. Some of it can be posted here, but it would probably be better if sent to someone who could use the information to put together the Notice required to stop the delays.

Didn’t Wendy Murphy offer her services to the Alexanders — to work Pro Bono to get the Trial back and rolling? Is Wendy Murphy representing the Alexanders? If so, should I send my research to the Patriot Ledger and ask the Editor to forward it to her? There are seven parts to it. I am going to add two parts tomorrow [well, actually today], once I am done researching the details from that last Motion that I just read. It would only need two parts because most of the details (for vacating the defendant’s Motion/Pleadings and getting the Trial restarted) have already been provided in the first seven.

Morning all – so glad to see a new post!!!!! *****waves******* and {{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}} to all.

Donchais I was hoping you were taking a well deserved rest but I must admit I felt incredibly lost every morning when I checked and all I saw was comments closed. I have truly missed all the sandbox peeps and especially the President of Donchais University!!!!!!!!!

I too am watching another trial that I vowed I would NOT watch but I have gradually gotten sucked in. After yesterday, I figured I would give it one more day because my frustration level was over my limit. 🙄

I was very sorry to see that the JA movie received such good ratings. I don’t get the channel plus our Lifetime has different programming. Some reviews thought it was well done and some reviewers thought they gave JA too much humanity. After watching the trial, who needs a movie????? :shocked: The day of the movie JA was frantically tweeting (well someone for her and hawking her art (tracing) again!!! Totally infuriated me. 👿

Justice for Travis

Wendy

06/27/2013 at 9:21 am

Hi MMD! Hope everything is great with you. Missed everyone.

ByeByeJA

06/27/2013 at 1:34 pm

The reviewers must have been employees of Lifetime — it was a horrible movie.

Ci Ci's Circle

06/28/2013 at 11:24 am

As we read through a lot of the Twitters we could tell that many knew nothing about the trial through their own admission. Couldn’t believe some of the comments actually believing what they saw in the movie. Fortunately some responded to them indicating that the movie took many liberties with the true facts of the case and they should go back and read transcripts to bring themselves up to speed with the TRUTH of the matter and not the nonsense Lifetime put together just for entertainment and ratings!!

MMD

06/27/2013 at 8:32 am

We all knew that JA had started by abusing animals and this video shows that JM tried to bring it in with ALV. Sadly he was shut down.

It is so good to see the sight still up and running as I am looking forward to the sentence but living in Australia we do not get much information regarding Jodi.

donchais

06/27/2013 at 9:42 pm

Bad storms here past few weeks and death by cicadas…bear with me…trying to work thru it!!!

MMD

06/28/2013 at 11:34 am

Donchais – are you hiding in your basement with your computer? 😯 I thought the cicadas season was over?

donchais

06/28/2013 at 12:25 pm

Went on for 5 1/2 weeks…ended 4 days ago…still carcases lying around, but yard guys have been good at cleaning them out…so many,had to hop-scotch to get the mail, lol.

Kristy

06/27/2013 at 10:28 pm

I can’t believe how FOS the movie was. There was no way I’d give them ratings, and I hope they sucked. Apparently, there was no positive feedback, either from here or the haters site. General consensus was the same, BS storyline that played lousy goosey with the facts we saw.

Well, the haters still live in delusion land regarding Jodi, and don’t think she was an animal abuser, because she had to be young, just like with the dog she admitted to striking when she was a teenager.

I didn’t get a timeframe regarding the cat incidence. I thought there was a story regarding Jodi watching 2 cats that she ignored, and they were malnourished as a result of her stellar pet loving care? Anyone know if the cat stories are related?

Douglme

06/28/2013 at 1:57 am

That story about starving the cats came from a co-worker in one of the restaurants she worked. I am not sure if it was another co-workers cats or her bosses or something! True story though!

jad

06/28/2013 at 1:43 am

donchais,

Some thought has gone into this request. Time is of the essence, or else this would not be asked. Is it possible that the first three parts (of my research Report dealing with the June 12, 2013 filed Defendant’s Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase (Oral Argument Requested) can be posted here, so that the others in this room will have a better understanding of what the criminal lawyers are doing in the case? This is asked, because there is so little time left for the Alexander family to act to request a reexamination of what had occurred on June 20, 2013 (at that proceeding for that Motion for Continuance). If the Report [or even a partial bit of the Report] is posted, someone might read it and tell a member of the family that there are Laws that support their efforts to timely begin the Penalty Phase [that will have a resolution that will finally end the case, one way or another]. They would not have to wait for a date in 2014 (while Jodi Arias has the benefits of a jail in the stead of a PRISON). Also, those in the room who want more information on the manner the Law has been abused might want to read the Report, to be able to speak out [more comfortably] about the matter. Moreover, we can get things done, if (when we speak out for Justice 4 Travis) we speak out with knowledge of the LAW. All of us need to know the LAW and the Court RULES that affect this case and the players in this case — so that we can spread the word to others who might want to assist in demanding Justice 4 Travis and the Alexander Family.

The Law of A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A) limits the time to ask for a reexamination, to ten days from the date of the Proceeding [of June 20, 2013] at which a Victim’s (constitutional or statutory) Right was denied. Rule 1.3(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., then computes the time and puts that date as a Monday [July 1, 2013], since the tenth day is on a Sunday. Although the Law announces there to be leeway one would have (to request a Reexamination Proceeding) with leave of the Court, it must be acknowledged that the Court might not be so amenable to granting leave of Court, since it is the Court being accused of the multiple violations involving the disregard of the Victim’s Rights recognized under the Speedy Trial Right. There can be no blame placed on a criminal lawyer, as A.R.S. Section 13-4435(A) does not recognize that person as being a responsible party to take the appropriate action to ensure the Speedy Trial Right of the Victim, instead recognizing only “the court, prosecutor and law enforcement officials”.

In a rather strange way of looking at the Law, it can actually be seen that (because the prosecutor has been commanded, by Law, to take appropriate action to ensure the Victim’s Speedy Trial Right) the prosecutor might [be found to] have standing in a situation such as one where [an objectionable, unreasonable delay in the Trial] a continuance is being requested [for the thirteenth time] by the same criminal lawyer. A prosecutor has such standing, under the premise of A.R.S. Section 13-4433(D), when acting “at the request of the victim to protect the victim from harassment, intimidation or abuse”, after a Victim consents to an interview with the criminal lawyer [or a surrogate working towards the same end as a criminal lawyer]. Since the Court MUST consider the Victim’s views, which must be spoken, while the Court MUST [simultaneously] keep in mind the Victim’s Right to a Speedy Trial, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4435(F), after the criminal lawyer drags all parties together when seeking a continuance, it would seem that the Victim should be able to ask the prosecutor to stop the bullying tactics of the criminal lawyer — when it was that lawyer that had demanded those specific Proceedings requiring the Victim be heard in some fashion. While this is a stretch, it is much more acceptable than the premise of the June 21, 2013 filed Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Aggravation Phase Verdict Pursuant to Rule 24.2 Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, wherein the criminal lawyers addressed the responsibility of a Court and of a Trier of Fact in the Aggravation Phase (that is so convoluted that the lawyers might want to use that excuse [that they confused themselves] as the reason neither mentioned the criminal lawyer [WURMI] already pleading something similar to a higher Court [actually 2 higher Courts, including the Arizona Supreme Court], when recognizing the Superior Court held a Probable Cause Hearing [under Chronis] that had established the aggravator [which decision by Judge Sally Duncan, some time back, was affirmed by Judge Sherry Stephens, also in the distant past]). Anyway, getting back to the way that a particular Law could be interpreted, it would seem that a prosecutor should have the Right to seek any appropriate protective Court Oder (for the Victim) to prevent the criminal lawyer from abusing the system and bullying his way to continue the Proceedings to make more pain and suffering for the Victim’s family, while making more pennies for his kettle — but I digress.

Getting back to the basics of the Law, there exists no real [or imagined] need to ask for a Court to bend over [to be inserted with all manner of Court dicta slathered with criminal lawyer tactic] to interpret and announce the Law according to a flight of fancy (in order to get the prosecutor to recognize the Right to speak out against the abuse of the system in the ongoing grants of continuances). It is apparent that a Victim (or Victim’s Representative carrying ALL the rights of the [deceased] Victim) can already depend on the prosecutor to assert any Right to which the Victim is entitled, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4437(C). Furthermore, under the edict of A.R.S. Section 13-4437(A), if the Victim desired to have more representation than that offered by the prosecutor, “the victim has the right to be represented by personal counsel at the victim’s expense”. Yet, there would be no personal expense, if an Attorney-at-Law offered Pro Bono services that were then accepted. Wendy Murphy is an attorney who [on a cable news network] broadcast an offer to file a demand under the Speedy Trial Right for the Alexander Family — at NO charge. So, not only does the Victim have every Right to file with an Appellate Court or to bring a Special Action, as permitted by A.R.S. Section 13-4437(A) (represented by [Pro Bono] personal counsel), but under the direction of A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A), a Victim has the Right to ask for a [reconsideration or] reexamination of the Court’s action when failing to comply with a Victim’s (constitutional or statutory) Right.

The Court MUST “afford the victim a reexamination proceeding to consider the issues raised by the denial of the victim’s right”. The Victim has standing and can exercise the Right to request a Reexamination Proceeding, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4436. A.R.S. Section 13-4436(E) further explains that the Victim is not restricted to the presentation of denying a Victim’s Rights, but can also present evidence or testimony showing “the failure to perform a duty or provide a right”. This Reexamination Proceeding or other Proceeding MUST COMMENCE not more than thirty days after Notice has been given the appropriate parties. Although it has been left to the Court to provide the Notice, if the Victim requests “a reexamination proceeding within ten days of the proceeding at which the victim’s right was denied”, per A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A), it appears that the Victim must make sure Notice is given if there was a failure to perform a duty or provide a right.

The Court can not deny knowledge of the existence of the Right to a Speedy Trial for the Victim, as the Court MUST read aloud a certain statement, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4438, that contains a declaration of that specific Victim’s Right to a Speedy Trial. This Statement of Right that the Court is required to read out loud multiple times each and every month “at the daily commencement of the regular criminal docket” [that involves certain Proceedings of accused persons] is the same Statement of Right posted in the Superior Court. This Statement of Right is easily viewed by all who enter the Superior Court of Judge Sherry Stephens, including, but not limited to, the criminal lawyers (who have been abusing the Victim’s RIGHTS). According to this Statement of Right, not only is a Victim guaranteed the Right to a Speedy Trial, but a Victim has also been guaranteed the Right to “a prompt and final conclusion of the case”. This is in alignment with that Speedy Trial Right contained in Rule 39(b)(15), Ariz.R.Crim.P., and also contained in Article 2, Section 2.1(A)(10), Ariz.Const. — that the Victim has the RIGHT “to a speedy trial or disposition and prompt and final conclusion of the case”.

This case was supposed to be done and over with years ago if it had not been for the actions of the criminal lawyer, that used delaying tactics to exclude days that would not count towards the time the Trial was to commence. Rule 8.2(a)(4), Ariz.R.Crim.P., has provided a time limit to commence the Trial for a capital case to be eighteen months from arraignment, and Rule 8.2(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., has provided a time limit of sixty days for a Trial to commence after the entry of a Mistrial — which occurred in this case, after the Jury was deadlocked in the Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding. These time limits can only be extended under Rule 8.5, Ariz.R.Crim.P., or those Rules referenced in that Rule which are Rule 8.1(e), Ariz.R.Crim.P., Rule 8.2(e), Ariz.R.Crim.P., and Rule 8.4(d), Ariz.R.Crim.P.. For a variety of reasons, the criminal lawyer can only use Rule 8.5, Ariz.R.Crim.P., (and more specifically that of section (b) of said Rule) when making an attempt to demonstrate some great need for a continuance to the Trial (which has now become a continuance to a Mistrial, after the entry of the Order brought about by a Jury that could not reach a unanimous verdict in the Penalty Phase, in the case the State of Arizona filed against Jodi Ann Arias).

It is clear (from a review of the Law and pertaining Court Rule) that the Victim’s constitutional [and statutory] Right to (Speedy Trial and) a Final Disposition of the case has been denied, if the Penalty Phase (after the entry of a Mistrial) is not begun within sixty days. The Reexamination Proceeding must be scheduled within thirty [30] days of Notice given. Since a date of July 18, 2013 is already on the Court’s Calendar for the Jodi Arias case, the Court can hold the Reexamination Proceeding on that date (if the Court [does not feign forgetfulness] because it must not overlook its responsibility to notify the criminal lawyers about the intent to hold that type of Hearing), and that particular day is as good as any. Once the Reexamination Proceeding is held, in accord with the dictate of A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A), not only must the Court make a Ruling as to whether the Court had made a decision in a prior Proceeding (when reconsidering the outcome) that failed to protect the Victim’s Rights, but THE COURT MUST FROM THEN ON ENSURE THAT THE VICTIM’S RIGHTS ARE THEREAFTER PROTECTED. That is inescapable. The Court “shall ensure that the victim’s rights are thereafter protected” or so the command to the Court reads.

Let’s repeat the meaning of that particular portion of that specific LAW, regarding the conclusive results of a Reexamination Proceeding. Once the Court holds the Hearing, the Court MUST adhere to the LAW in recognizing the Victim’s RIGHTS. There is no way that a Court can reinterpret that to mean the criminal lawyer can keep using any made-up excuses to further delay the case. The Victim can NOT BE DENIED a Speedy Trial Right and can NOT BE DENIED the Right to a Final Disposition (and the Court must steer all in the direction of a PROMPT AND FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE CASE). The Alexander Family needs to have this case over with. Stephen Alexander’s Victim Impact Statement showed how much he is still suffering through a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Until his stressors are removed, he will not be able to address the problems involved with this disorder. The stressors are the events surrounding this Trial. Not only was his most beloved brother slain in the prime of his life, but this young man (Stephen [who was serving our Country in the Army at that time of great loss]) has seen his RIGHTS trampled by a Court of Law (violating his trust and his faith) and has witnessed the deliberate degradation and character assassination of his brother — that has been permitted by a most lenient Court.

The Law of A.R.S. Section 13-4436(A) limits the time to request this Proceeding (to reconsider its decision), to ten [10] days from the date of occurrence (of the complaint of failure to comply with the Victim’s constitutional or statutory Right). The date of occurrence was June 20, 2013. Thus, this Monday is the last day to make the request. Since the Alexanders might not know of this Law, it is important to reveal this Law and provide a way to review other certain Laws or Rules that one might want to use to prove the failure. The publication of parts of my Report could assist, by providing knowledge of the Laws that pertain to this one particular case. Then, whatever one wants to do with the information can be done. Hopefully, people will share what they can until it gets into the proper hands, and the information assist in the understanding of the cause.

Douglme

06/28/2013 at 1:59 am

Missed you all…so nice to have the sandbox backup and running and having you people to chat with. Thank you Donchais, you are the best!

Douglme

06/28/2013 at 2:00 am

MMD, did you get the article I had forwarded to you regarding migraines? Hope you are feeling better!

jad

06/28/2013 at 3:04 am

THIS IS PART I.

The criminal lawyer’s Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase (Oral Argument Requested), [that seems to have intentionally been filed for no valid purpose other than to paper the Court], is a waste to the time of the Court, the State, the Victim, and the people; and, this Motion with its spurious reasoning [as a sham pleading], filed in complete disregard to Court Rule, should be stricken, and the signatory sanctioned. There can be no allowance granted for the scheduled date for the Penalty Phase to be shelved for another month or any amount of time, if the basis is this deceiving Motion. Furthermore, when a decision must be made on any properly filed request for a continuance (by a defendant waiving the defendant’s Rights for any Speedy Disposition), respect for [Court Rules and] the Victim’s Rights, as mandated by the State of Arizona Constitution (State Law and Court Rule) must ALWAYS take precedence, if the Court should decide such a request must be considered.

There is a need to understand the tactics that had been employed surrounding the newest Motion for Continuance, that had been filed [the 12th day of June in 2013] by the signatory, Wurmi, a criminal lawyer, licensed by the Arizona Bar (that has a dubious connection to the case), who has performed as first chair on the defense team of Jodi Arias. There is agreement that there could be many, many reasons [one could think of] to seek to continue the case after a Mistrial was entered (when simultaneously making a decision to waive the Right to Speedy Trial). However, it must be acknowledged that the main purpose in seeking a continuance is that it is done in an attempt to delay the Trial, the Sentencing Proceeding, or the Final Disposition, for whatever the [underlying] motivation would be. Since the two original appointed Defense Counsel [from the Maricopa County Office of Legal Defense Services] were allowed to withdraw, the replacement from the Public Defender’s Office (who consequently found employment in the case to also be paid as a private-practice attorney), has participated in Motion practice play, that ultimately brought about (a hefty increase in his compensation and) the filing of twelve different Motions for Continuances before the Trial stage of the case the State brought against Jodi Ann Arias.

This attempt to control the case, by seeking continuances of the Trial, has consistently been favorably acted on, by a continuation of grants (by the Court to benefit the criminal lawyers) in the Jodi Arias case. In order to understand how any of the TEN defendant’s continuances (in the Jodi Arias case) were granted [and two denied], one would have to [familiarize oneself with the case and] become familiar with the Law and the Rules, that could have been re-lied on to permit such activity (that would have been able to allow a constitutional Right of one of the people, to Speedy Trial, to be abridged or dismissed entirely). Thus, the understanding would come from recognition of the appropriate parts of the Constitution for the United States of America (“U.S. Const.”), the Constitution for the State of Arizona (“Ariz.Const.”), the Law of the Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”), and/or the Rules of Court, to which (besides other Divisions of the Court Rules [like, for instance the Civil Rules of Procedure or Probate Procedure Rules]) included the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Ariz.R.Crim.P.”).

Although the defendant would have waived one of her Rights [to Speedy Trial], when filing a request to continue the Trial to a later date, the criminal lawyer for Jodi Arias always made the Court aware that his client was not giving up any other Right. Regardless, when these other Motions for Continuance were filed under the protections of certain Constitutional guarantees for the defendant (that were identified in the body of the Motion), the criminal lawyers would manipulate the Court into a belief that the Victim’s Rights were never violated, since the Victim and the defendant (when being viewed as maintaining equal Rights) were looked at as possessing the same status. In other words, the Victim was mistakenly viewed as waiving the Right to a Speedy Trial because the defendant had given up her Right to a Speedy Trial. For whatever reason, the Court has gone along with this [false portrayal by the criminal lawyers of creating no harm to the Rights of the Victim], no matter how objectionable this recognition has been declared to be, by the Victim’s Representative (Samantha Alexander) or the State (through expressed objections to the grants of continuances, by the prosecutor, Juan Martinez).

During the time period [of three years] that they filed twelve Motions for Continuance, neither Jodi Arias nor the criminal lawyers who represented her seemed to mind that filing a Motion for Continuance, that was objectionable to the State, usually brought with it a violation of the Victim’s Rights (such as the Right to Speedy Trial or RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION of the case, as such Rights have been recognized by Article 2, Section 2.1(A)(10), Ariz.Const., Rule 39(b)(15), Ariz.R.Crim.P., and Rule 8.5(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., [as well as the Right to Speedy Trial [after the Mistrial was entered], under A.R.S. Section 13-4435 (A) & (F), when applied to a Final Disposition, as defined in A.R.S. Section 13-4401(10)]). Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens would know that the Victim would have a RIGHT to a PROMPT AND FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE CASE [under the Speedy Trial Right] because A.R.S. Section 13-4438 has ordered every Superior Court Judge to read aloud a certain statement before the daily commencement of the regular criminal docket [involving particular matters for the accused], of which this particular Right is always read out loud. As a matter of fact, Judge Stephens should have been familiar with the Court Rules [promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court, under the decree of Article 6, Section 5(5), Ariz.Const.,] governing the Criminal Division that she served; and, she should have acknowledged that Rule 1.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., defined those Rules, which included (the Rules were) “intended to provide for the just, speedy determination of every criminal proceeding” which were to be construed to eliminate unnecessary delay and “protect the fundamental rights of the individual” (while also preserving “the public welfare” [of which the people’s purse should have finally been an issue at this late stage]). Thus, the Court would have to acknowledge that, when granting a continuance upon the waiver of the defendant’s individual Right to Speedy Trial, this act [by the Court] could not be misinterpreted [by the Court] as a waiver of the Victim’s individual Right to Speedy Trial (or Speedy Disposition), unless the wrong-headed decision had been a deliberate assault on the Rights of the Victim.

At long last, the Trial of the Criminal Proceeding came to an end in May [8] of 2013, after a Jury verdict of guilty was entered in the case, and it was assumed that the criminal lawyer’s indiscriminate filing of Motions to prolong the case (by seeking to continue the Trial) had ended [since that part of the case with the Trial had ended]. (Per the [mandate of the Arizona Legislature, with the] direction of A.R.S. Section 13-752(C),) the Aggravation Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding timely [and immediately] followed the end of the Trial without incident. It seemed that the delaying tactics utilized (that had brought about such sheer agony [on the Alexander family] from the torture inflicted) by the criminal lawyers would no longer affect the Proceedings, and a Final Disposition would be had. On the contrary to what was hoped (for a quick Hearing on the Penalty Phase, that would bring an end to the case), the case would continue a little longer, because the Jurors were unable to reach a unanimous agreement on the degree of the punishment [in the death penalty case], in the deliberation during the Penalty Phase — possibly because of confusion. (For instance, A.R.S. Section 13-751(F)(9) describes an aggravating factor to be the age of the defendant as an adult, while A.R.S. Section 13-751(G)(5) simply describes a mitigating factor [at the time of the crime] as “the defendant’s age” (rather than describing a minor or juvenile), which apparently affected the [confused and aged] Jury Foreman to believe that a ‘young girl’ [the defendant, who was older than any of the ‘girls’, sentenced to death, for the capital crimes of the Charles Manson gang] was too youthful, at a mature age of twenty-seven, to know any better.) A Mistrial was declared on May 24, 2013, and the second Penalty Phase, following the directive of A.R.S. Section 13-752(K) was scheduled for July 18, 2013, with a Status Conference Hearing set for June 20, 2013 (which was in line with the mandate [promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court] that the Trial start within sixty days after the entry of a Mistrial by the Court, pursuant to Rule 8.2(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P.).

There was no problem registered by the Victim, as the meaning of Victim for Sentencing Proceedings [that included, but was not limited to, siblings of the murdered person] is recognized pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-752(S)(2) [and A.R.S. Section 13-4401(19)], even though the Victim knew that another Victim Impact Statement ((“VIS”) which the Law defined to be in any format desired by the Victim) would have to be prepared, with the information presented at the Penalty Phase, per the directive of A.R.S. Section 13-752(R). However, (after the filing of another type of Motion by the criminal lawyer, that attempted to diminish the Victim’s Rights in regards to the VIS), the criminal lawyer seemed to demonstrate he had a problem in his understanding and acceptance that it is the constitutional Right of the Victim to be heard at every Sentencing Hearing or Disposition Hearing, slated under A.R.S. Section 13-4410(B)(6), pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4426. Also taken into consideration by the Victim would have been the fact that the Trier of Fact, [as the Jury] over the second Penalty Phase, would not consist of the same Jurors that had deliberated to reach the previous verdicts. Likewise [with another change], the Victim also realized, [that unlike the Trial and the Aggravation Phase where the burden of proof was on the State] under A.R.S. Section 13-751(C) and A.R.S. Section 13-752(P), the defendant would have the burden of proof of the facts (that could establish the circumstances of the mitigating factors) at the Penalty Phase.

In the case the State of Arizona brought against Jodi Ann Arias, the VIS had been presented [at that first Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding] by Stephen Alexander and Samantha Alexander, a brother and a sister of the brutally slain Victim, Travis Alexander. What’s more, so as not to have confusion because of the criminal lawyer’s expressed desire to review the VIS [beforehand with the right to eradicate any statement in the VIS that the defendant chose], it should be acknowledged prior to the second Penalty Phase that, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-4426.01, the VIS is NOT subject to disclosure to the defendant or the State, and the VIS is NOT submitted to the Court, and the Victim would NOT be made available for cross-examination, at any Proceeding where the Victim held the Right to be heard, pursuant to Chapter 38 of Title 13, A.R.S., or Article 2, Section 2.1, Ariz.Const.. After the reading of the VIS at that first Penalty Phase Proceeding, the State decided to employ a wait and see strategy before calling the witnesses on hand for the rebuttal. A.R.S. Section 13-751(D) and A.R.S. Section 13-752(I) had provided Notice that any evidence, that had been presented at the Trial and at the Aggravation Phase, had been admitted into evidence at the Penalty Phase, because the Trier of Fact was the same at all of those Proceedings. The State would have the opportunity to rebut the evidence already admitted, once rebuttal was attainable (after the criminal lawyers presented the defendant’s case). The State would rebut with relevant evidence to show that the mitigation was not sufficient for leniency for the defendant, per A.R.S. Section 13-752(G). However, the State was denied that opportunity for rebuttal because the criminal lawyers did not call any witness and had let the defendant present [unsworn testimony of] allocution, that had no allowance for cross-examination by the State. The State was essentially denied the right to put on a case at the Penalty Stage because of that maneuver, and the State would not let that happen again.

Both A.R.S. Section 13-752(D) and A.R.S. Section 13-752(F) made it apparent that “If the trier of fact finds that one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances have been proven, the trier of fact shall then immediately determine whether the death penalty should be imposed” and the Penalty Phase would be “held immediately after the trier of fact finds at the aggravation phase”. There was no doubt that the Penalty Phase was to be held as close to the Aggravation Phase as possible, without any delay. This should not change if there were to be a second Penalty Phase Proceeding, especially since a provision of Rule 1.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., was that there would be a just, speedy determination of every Criminal Proceeding. The Rule 8.2(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., grant of a Mistrial put the second Penalty Phase to be within sixty days. That should have been the most that the Final Disposition would have been delayed (other than proof for request for continuance, demanded by Rule 8.5(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., that extraordinary circumstances existed that would have forced a delay that was indispensable to the interests of justice). Moreover, Rule 39(b)(15), Ariz.R.Crim.P., was one of the Rules deliberately prepared to protect a Victim’s Rights to justice and due process, that showed this specific Right to be the Right to a Speedy Disposition of the case, and afterwards the Right to a “prompt and final conclusion of the case after conviction and sentence”.

The criminal lawyers probably knew the maneuver staged [to not present a case] would not be able to work again to deny the State the presentation of witnesses at the second Penalty Phase Proceeding. The criminal lawyers would have to resign themselves to present the mitigating factors discovered, under the appointment of their Mitigation Specialist, their Investigators, and their experts [using Rule 15.9, Ariz.R.Crim.P., and A.R.S. Section 13-4013(B)]. At that first Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding (without tipping their hand to the State), a decision had been made and employed to skip the witnesses that had been scheduled to testify for the accused. That scheme [was missed, although] should have been anticipated, since (the evening before) Jodi Arias had stated [her criminal lawyers had told her] she had no mitigating factors to present, when being interviewed by a local FOX affiliate. The State missed the meaning of what had been said, and the State did not realize there would be a missed opportunity to present testimony at the Penalty Phase. But, reviewing what had occurred [with 20/20 hindsight] it is clear that the criminal lawyers knew they were boxing in the State and that a rebuttal could never be programmed [under their scheme].

Darryl Brewer, one scheduled witness who had already testified at Trial, had admitted during his testimony that Jodi Arias had called him immediately after Travis Alexander died to tell him that the Victim was dead. A reminder like that to the Jury would not predispose the Jurors to believe she had no memory of the event (and, thus, no PTSD), as she had asserted during her sworn testimony. In addition [during a broadcast interview with local media], he had provided more information when he announced that he believed there to be some trouble because he said their mutual friends in Monterey had not been contacted to be asked if they wanted to testify (which interview could have been used when setting up an ineffective assistance of counsel scheme as an appellate issue). It is apparent now that Darryl Brewer was merely window dressing to offset the prosecutor in his plans to present a rebuttal case. The name of another scheduled witness was mentioned, but the prosecutor proved the criminal lawyers had been involved with her and her claim to use the Fifth [Amendment] to protect herself during questioning. Nonetheless, that was much ado about nothing, which event seemed to have been staged to take one’s mind off contemplating the actual maneuver planned for the testimony at the Penalty Phase. Once that scheme had been employed, the State would not let that happen again either. When the defendant chose allocution and nothing else, it had worked to throw off the case and get what the defense team wanted. Their tactics confused the Jurors enough that the Jurors could not put together the State’s testimony heard so long before (at the beginning of the case, in January). So, there was no unanimous verdict on the death penalty sentence.

Travis Alexander, the young man who had been viciously attacked in his own home and butchered by the defendant in her wantonness, had been grievously slandered and libeled during the course of the Trial. Thus, he had been murdered all over again, through character assassination. In spite of this, it was possible that that part of his existence could be resurrected because information in the testimony (provided by the defendant and her experts and other witnesses) showed that what the defendant had asserted to be serious flaws in the character of the deceased did not exist and had been fabricated. Another Penalty Phase could be used to let the victim’s name and reputation be restored, because A.R.S. Section 13-752(G) permitted the State to “present any evidence that demonstrates that the defendant should not be shown leniency including any evidence regarding the defendant’s character, propensities, criminal record or other acts”.

Some critical parts of the testimony of Jodi Arias and her [advocate] expert witnesses could be impeached, regarding her character and other acts (and many of the sexual aspects of the relationship with the Victim that she falsely claimed). These all could be denounced sufficiently, as to render no defense — and, especially no self-defense argument based on a domestic violence issue. And, although the convicted murderer was looking at a death sentence of which a charge of a felony might not have mattered to her [whether she was charged or any person testifying on her behalf], those charges that consisted of offenses involving false swearing, perjury, and perjury by inconsistent statements could have been used to eventually bring light to the truth of the matter. The quicker these persons were able to be questioned (by the State) the better it was for the good name and reputation of the Victim to be reestablished — since, if too much time elapsed, a witness could feign forgetfulness. A quick start of the Penalty Phase, that could be used to impeach any testimony provided by former witnesses, would not be an imposition upon the State, because the truth of the matter would work for the benefit of the State’s case.

jad

06/28/2013 at 3:06 am

THIS IS PART II.
In the latest [June 12, 2013] Motion for Continuance, the request had been made to continue the Penalty Phase, which would not be giving up any Speedy Trial Right for the defendant, although it would be in violation of the Victim’s Rights [to a prompt disposition of the case] under Rule 39(b)(15), Ariz.R.Crim.P.. As a matter of fact, the claim that seemed to be made in the Motion was that there were Rights that protected Jodi Arias, when filing this particular matter. There was nothing mentioned (in that Defendant’s Motion) about the fact that [Travis Alexander, through his Representative] the Victim NEVER waived any of the Speedy Trial Rights of Rule 8, Ariz.R.Crim.P., or any of the Victim’s Rights of Rule 39, Ariz.R.Crim.P., or any of a Crime Victim’s Rights of Article 40 of A.R.S. Section 13-4401, et. seq., or any of a Victim’s Bill of Rights of Article 2, Section 2.1, Ariz.Const., even though the defendant could intentionally chose [12 times] over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-again to waive her Speedy Trial Rights, without a flinch.

The latest [in a long line of] Motion for Continuance was made by Wurmi for Jodi Arias, under those certain Rights she would hold under the Supreme Law of the Land (described in Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Const., and Article 2, Section 3, Ariz.Const.), which criminal lawyer’s claim of protection asserted the basis to be in Article Five and Article Eight of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const., together with Article 2, Section 4, Ariz.Const., and Article III, Ariz.Const., [which is assumed to mean Article 3, Ariz.Const., since there is no Article III, Ariz.Const.]. Even now, there is only one section under Article 3, Ariz.Const., and both the Article and the section have the same caption, Distribution of Powers. There is no rhyme or reason for the criminal lawyer to use what we carry knowledge of, as being the same as the Separation of Powers Doctrine (other than the possibility that the criminal lawyer might have been pointing out the fact [from the Case Laws referenced in that Motion] that the “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibition is in regards to a legislative exercise rather than a judicial determination). There is nothing in the Motion for Continuance to explain how Jodi Arias can be protected under a guarantee that there will be separate, distinct, and co-equal Branches of Government. The other State constitutional guarantee referenced is one that involves due process of Law. So, it must be assumed that the criminal lawyer was making a claim that his client did fear the State would deprive her of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law, if there was not an immediate recognition of that State constitutional guarantee of Article 2, Section 4, Ariz.Const..

The constitutional claim (made by the criminal lawyer WURMI) that resided in the protection afforded Jodi Arias under the United States Constitution basically involved the same fear of being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” if the State refused to honor Article Five of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., or the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const.. She might have also wanted to claim “the equal protection of the laws” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const.. It must be assumed that Jodi Arias would have used the fear of “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, if the State refused to honor her Right under Article Eight of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const.. All of these Sections of the State and Federal Constitutions (that contained various Rights) were again repeated, [in Part III] at the Conclusion of the Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase, when arguing (for the continuance of the Penalty Phase [currently pending against her]) for the illogical, overly-broad, non-specific reasons mentioned, so that she could receive the FULL BENEFIT of ALL of those Rights due her, under the constitutional guarantees mentioned. So, although the criminal lawyer was not very specific, the Motion for Continuance was wrapped around specific constitutional Rights belonging to Jodi Arias, but without a real revelation of any of the Rights held by the Victim.

Wurmi must have felt those Rights (belonging to Travis Alexander, the Victim, [under Article 2, Section 2.1, Ariz.Const., and the comporting Arizona Law of Article 40 of A.R.S. Section 13-4401, et. seq., and the Court Rules of Rule 8, Ariz.R.Crim.P., and Rule 39, Ariz.R.Crim.P.,]) to be inconsequential or inferior to the Rights of his client (who had recently become a convicted felon, with loss of liberty, and loss of certain of her once valued Rights once there was a Final Disposition of the cause). Additionally, one more constitutional Right was mentioned in the body of the Motion. This was in Part II, where reference was made to Article 2, Section 15, Ariz.Const., which is linked to Article Eight of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., and the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const.. The criminal lawyer might have thought he could take the opportunity to try to slip in a death penalty argument that was not on the surface (and not plead, wherein he could have been trying to successfully implant a few more appellate issues). Likewise, since Article Eight of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., contains the same prohibition as Article 2, Section 15, Ariz.Const., against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment”, it can be assumed it is an argument against the death penalty, which should not be accepted as [Part II’s] Relevant Law in a Motion for Continuance.

Actually, the [inauspicious argument, portentous reasoning, and unacceptable] Case-Laws referenced were NOT really applicable to a Motion for Continuance, and said Motion should never have been set for Hearing on oral argument, as had been accepted from the demand made in the title of the Motion. All Motions [not just the Defendant’s Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase] must stick to the formula prescribed by Rule 35.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P.. A Motion should contain “a short, concise statement of the precise nature of the relief requested” that is “accompanied by a brief memorandum stating the specific factual grounds therefor and indicating the precise legal points, statutes, and authorities relied upon”. The Court should have known this and should have recognized the Court’s power to reject the fallacious argument, that had no real basis in the Law [failing to mention even one Statute or one Court Rule]. Rule 35.2, Ariz.R.Crim.P., would permit the Court the right to reject oral argument on any Motion filed. Even if the State would have chosen not to file a Response to the Defendant’s Motion for Continuance to contest this Motion, the Motion should have been summarily dismissed. (The Court should not have needed the State to tell the Judge the Motion should never have been before the Court.)

This type of Motion or sham pleading does not belong in the Court’s case file, as a paper or pleading that has to take up space and involve the Court’s time (especially when it must be acknowledged that the Court is [and has been for quite some time] overloaded from the papering of the Court). If the person submitting the Motion were Pro Per or Pro Se, semi-literate, and feared facing the death penalty, the content of the Motion might be understandable, but the person filing this Motion is a licensed member of the Bar, who is supposed to be death penalty qualified to represent persons in capital murder cases. This type of lawyer should have known his quasi-death penalty argument did not belong in a Motion for Continuance, ([that delayed the Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding] violating the Victim’s constitutional Right to a speedy Final Disposition under the Speedy Trial Right) in a case where the defendant had already been found guilty, wherein the circumstance proving the aggravator had also been found — by a Trier of Fact, the JURY (as can be defined under A.R.S. Section 13-752(S)(1)).

In the introductory passage of [or Preamble to] what the criminal lawyer had decided to call a Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase (Oral Argument Requested), the Court was made aware that there were additional facts the criminal lawyer wanted to raise during an Ex Parte Hearing (that seemed to be meant to be held to school the Court with information denied everyone else), to be scheduled before argument was made for the continuance (which Ex Parte Proceeding is presumed to be that of Rule 15.9(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., which would require a proper showing first be made concerning the NEED for such confidentiality). Regardless, that was a groundless, ridiculous statement by the criminal lawyer, as a Motion for Continuance does not afford for the movant party to only provide certain details (with other information provided beforehand at an Ex Parte Hearing, to which no one else would be privy). On the contrary, [like that description of a Motion in Rule 35.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P.,] it is a requirement of Rule 8.5(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., that the movant party of a Motion for Continuance “state with specificity the reason(s) justifying the continuance”, which reasons also “must be in writing”.

Holding one-sided meetings with Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens, to feed the Judge biased information on which to base her opinion, without room for the opposing party to object [because the other party is left in the dark, without the right to gather knowledge about his own case] and fudging documents to garner a continuance, is violative of the Speedy Trial Right of a Victim. Moreover, the application of Rule 39(b)(15), Ariz.R.Crim.P., is not only to assert a Speedy Trial Right (for the Victim), but also to assert a Right to a speedy “disposition” of the case, as well as to assert a [speedy] “prompt and final conclusion of the case after conviction and sentence”. The directive of A.R.S. Section 13-4435(F) is that the Court must consider the VIEWS of the Victim, together with consider the Speedy Trial RIGHT of the Victim, before ruling on a Motion for Continuance, which reasons must be stated on the Record (NOT limited to stating the reasons on the record at an Ex Parte Hearing [that will probably be sealed], where the reasons would NOT be known to ALL). Only when there is a legitimate Motion before the Court, that can be properly considered, does the Court receive the authority to act to grant a continuance (which is restricted to the time necessary to serve the interests of justice), per [the legislative decree of] A.R.S. Section 13-4435(D), but the Court must still make a finding that “extraordinary circumstances exist and the delay is indispensable to the interests of justice”, which is the same requirement as contained in [the judicial edict of] Rule 8.5(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P..

There have been many sealed proceedings throughout this case, and much secretive information also sealed, which goes against the grain of a society that is honest and not closed [with open records Laws], and these dictates to (keep knowledge away from the public and) assist in secret missions by the criminal lawyer should be stopped, as the citizenry, who have [somehow, for some reason] been billed almost two million dollars by the defense, have a RIGHT TO KNOW. Unless there is a finding of exigent circumstances, A.R.S. Section 13-4435(C) depicts a Motion for Continuance to be in writing. Even if the Court were to permit the Motion to be made orally, the constitutionally required obedience to Court Rule, by the Judge, would necessitate the Judge demand the Motion be put in writing [at the earliest point in time, if Court Rule is properly adhered to]. This requirement for the Court (presiding over the Jodi Arias case) is grounded in the Oath of the Judge of the Superior Court, located in Article 6, Section 26, Ariz.Const., and the fact that the status and rank of the Superior Court is that of an inferior Court to that of the Arizona Supreme Court. Article 6, Section 5(5), Ariz.Const., gives ALL Power and Authority to the Arizona Supreme Court to make the Court Rules relative to ALL procedural matters in ANY Court (that includes the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which Rules would govern this criminal case with defendant Jodi Arias).

In accord with an allowance granted by the Arizona Supreme Court, the Superior Court has the capability to make a Local Court Rule. All the same, these Local Court Rules must NOT be inconsistent with the Court Rules [promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court]; and, before these Local Court Rules become effective, they must be approved in writing by the Arizona Supreme Court, per Rule 36, Ariz.R.Crim.P. (of which any and all Rules must comport with the Supreme Law of the Land of the Constitution for the United States of America, in accord with the non-voidable declaration of Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Const., with validation provided in the Constitution for the State of Arizona, at Article 2, Section 3, Ariz.Const. [that would apply to Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens, because of the Oath of Office taken [and subscribed], pursuant to Article VI, Clause 3, U.S. Const., and Article 6, Section 26, Ariz.Const.]). In addition, even though Article 6, Section 11, Ariz.Const., has given permission to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to arrange for the administrative supervision of the Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court retains the power and authority over the Superior Court through its constitutional superiority over ALL the Courts of the State, pursuant to Article 6, Section 3, Ariz.Const.. In this particular case, the Judge of the Superior Court must acknowledge that the decree of Article 6, Section 21, Ariz.Const., (that requires a decision be made in a case within sixty days [from the date of submission]) is very similar to the [criminal proceeding] mandate of Rule 8.2(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., (promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court) that requires a Court Proceeding (such as a Penalty Phase of a Sentencing Proceeding) be scheduled within sixty days of entry of a Mistrial.

jad

06/28/2013 at 6:39 am

THIS IS PART III.

It seems to be the opinion of many that the June 20, 2013 decision by [Judge Sherry Stephens of] the Superior Court of Maricopa County, to fail to recognize constitutional decree and subsequent Court Rule (in the case of the convicted felon, Jodi Ann Arias), is wrong and [any ensuing action] a nugatory act, because of the succeeding violations of the Victim’s Rights and actions taken contrary to Law. These violations of the Victim’s Rights, that includes the violation to the time limit guarantee of [the judicially prepared] Rule 8.2(c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., initially occurred through the Court’s allowance to act as though there was a Right to continue the time period for the Second Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding (since [the legislative decree of] A.R.S. Section 13-752(K) does permit such Second Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceeding for a capital murder case).

The Judge acted favorably towards the (convicted but not sentenced defendant) murderer, under the request made by a criminal lawyer [bringing in evermore pennies for his kettle], on the basis of a Motion that was so insufficient, that it had no redeeming qualities to portray that which it had been titled — which was Motion to Continue; Penalty Phase (Oral Argument Requested). The Court’s consequent action appeared to be based on the Judge’s interpretation of the fallacious reasoning of that Defendant’s Motion, filed June 12, 2013, that did not mention any Law of the State of Arizona or any Court Rule of the State of Arizona, but had relied upon the Law of two cases from the State of Texas, two cases from the State of Georgia, and one case from the State of Maryland, together with certain constitutional guarantees that have more to do with an argument against the death penalty, rather than a discussion about continuing the case, where a Mistrial had been declared on the date of May 24, 2013.

The Motion was published, with the rationale provided by the criminal lawyer, that the underlying facts and Laws to support the request to continue the Penalty Phase would be included in the accompanying Memorandum of [Law] Points and Authorities (that had been incorporated into that Legal Document in the three pages following that preliminary statement). Although the Motion promised Laws would be included in the body, there were no [Statute] Laws and no Court Rules. There was nothing other than the mention of five Case Laws in Part II, titled Relevant Law — two 2004 cases from Texas, two cases from Georgia [from 1977 and 1979] and a 2003 case from the State of Maryland. Not one of these [five] Case Laws arose from the federal jurisdiction of the State of Arizona (which is in the Ninth Circuit), although all had a Supreme Court opinion. These opinions involved the Law regarding two Texas cases from the Fifth Circuit, two Georgia cases also from the Fifth Circuit [prior to the Rule of Bonner vs. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (U.S. 11th Cir. 1981), that also made these cases binding in the Eleventh Circuit], and one Maryland case from the Fourth Circuit. Additionally, there were [four in total] references to two specific sections in both the Federal and State Constitutions, which were Article Eight of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Const., and Article 2, Section 15, Ariz.Const., which [both] involve the prohibition against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment”, as well as the two specific sections, which were the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const., and Article 2, Section 4, Ariz.Const., that involve the guarantee of a State’s administration of due process to protect against the deprivation of “life, liberty, or property” of any citizen of any of the [several] States of the Union.

Under Part II, titled Relevant Law, the criminal lawyer brought up two ways that the mitigating factors could be presented for Jodi Arias to paint a complete picture of her life — which would be through witnesses or in alternative ways [or the combination of both methods]. Wurmi then identified a “capital sentencer” and a “sentencer in a capital case” as the entity for which Jodi Arias must paint this complete picture through her Defense Counsel [or else be denied her absolute Right to present mitigation evidence to a JURY]. At first, the two entities (of a capital sentencer and a Jury) do not appear as though they are the same or can be transposed. However, these entities are one and the same. In the State of Arizona, the [person or] entity that makes the decision for the sentencing of the defendant in the Penalty Phase of the Sentencing Proceedings is the same person as the one that makes the decision of guilt or innocence in the Trial Proceedings and makes the decision as to whether the circumstances in regards to the aggravating factor had been proven. This [person or] entity is known as the Trier of Fact, also known as either a Judge or a JURY. The Trier of Fact would not be a Judge, in regards to the Jodi Arias case, as there had been no agreement by both parties to waive a Jury, which is the requirement of A.R.S. Section 13-752(S)(1), if a Bench Trial is desired [over that of a Jury Trial].

A significant fact to keep in mind is that, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 13-752(P), the Arizona Legislature has set into Law a central feature — that the Trier of Fact makes all the factual determinations (required by A.R.S. Section 13-752, or the Constitution of the United States, or the State of Arizona) to impose a death sentence. In this acceptable design [drawn up by the Arizona Legislature, to satisfy Supreme Court dicta and opinions spouted in a variety of Case Laws, regarding death penalty sentencing] that involves three separate stages, the legislatively formulated plan calls for the State to hold the burden of proof during the Trial Proceedings and during the Aggravation Phase of the Sentencing Proceedings. This is in line with the presumption of innocence guaranteed (to each and every accused [defendant]) in every Court of Law in the United States, whether it is a State Court or a Federal Court [although it must be a Court of Law, not an Administrative Law Court or other type of Tribunal like a Commission, that could masquerade as a Court of Law, but would not be and therefore would have no jurisdiction of the cause or of the person].

Arizona has been acknowledged to be a socially conscious State with Laws that have been implemented that demonstrate a high regard for the lives and the living conditions of all members of society. Because Arizona is a state that exercises the Right to take a life if the accused has taken a life in an especially cruel manner or other heinous or depraved character, Laws have been implemented in a way that will most protect the citizenry and make the State safe and secure for all [even any guests, whether invited or noted as not legally taking up residence in the State]. Arizona’s plan, in regards to death penalty cases, is actually all-encompassing in the embrace of extraordinary safeguards (for both the Victim and the accused) when deciding to put a case before a Trier of Fact, where a person’s remaining life on this earth is determined by the best judgment of a Trier of Fact [within the legal restrictions established by legislative decree]. Many States [like the State of Texas] only make an allowance for a two-stage process in determining whether a defendant lives or dies. The State of Arizona has added another dimension in death penalty cases, by actually dividing out the Sentencing Proceeding, so that a defendant has the opportunity to present his or her own case. Of course, since it is the defendant’s to demonstrate, it is the defendant’s [story] to prove. Therefore, the burden to establish what has been claimed is shifted upon the defendant. Without this added dimension to the Sentencing Proceeding (of a third stage), the case made against a defendant would have had a Final Disposition at the end of the Aggravation Phase. However, in a manner that would allow for an extra safeguard of protection for a defendant’s life, the defendant has the opportunity (and also the burden of proof) in that last stage of the Sentencing Proceeding to prove the circumstances of mitigating factors [not fully revealed or totally accepted in the other two stages] that would allow for leniency in the Penalty Phase. To reach agreement [at the Penalty Phase], that the circumstances proving the mitigating factors has been established, would be the task of the Trier of Fact (which is a JURY in the Jodi Arias case), which Wurmi indelicately and irrationally tried to explain in the putative Motion for Continuance.

In again making it known that the sentencer in a capital case must consider anything in the life of the defendant to mitigate against a sentence of death, the criminal lawyer named two Texas cases (as the RELEVANT LAW of the matter before the Court in a Motion for Continuance). It is well-known (through acknowledgement [of several publications] of articles on the subject of the death penalty) that the University of Texas School of Law [at Austin] Capital Punishment Clinic litigated both of these death penalty cases (of Tennard vs. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004) [regarding a mental retardation issue of very low IQ], and Smith vs. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (U.S. 2004) [regarding the inadequacy of the Jury Instructions that contained Special Issues]). The Capital Punishment Clinic prevailed on the fact that mitigation evidence must be presented. However, (unlike the two State of Texas cases,) there has never been a problem with the State of Arizona in allowing the defendant [Jodi Arias] to present mitigation evidence. Thus, the criminal lawyer’s argument is bogus, as it does NOT apply to the State in this case [of the State of Arizona vs. Jodi Ann Arias]. If the criminal lawyer should fear a problem like this might [or might not] happen (with an Arizona Jury), his argument is still premature and such a fallacious argument [that smells ripe but is NOT ripe for consideration] craftily made in advance of something that might or might not occur could not and should not be considered at this stage (and especially NOT by Judge Sherry Stephens, who is not and can not become an Appellate Court Judge in this case). In addition, the Court has no power or authority to act in the case as the Trier of Fact, and can not make decisions over the existence or non-existence of the aggravators or the mitigators, as that is the sole function of the Trier of Fact, which in the Jodi Arias case is NOT a Judge BUT IS A JURY.

Reference was made to the LAW of the Maryland case of Wiggins vs. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003), that also cited ABA Guidelines [regarding Defense Counsel work standards employed in a capital case, when the criminal lawyer was making a point] that it was the duty of Defense Counsel to paint a complete picture of mitigation evidence. (There was also an ineffective assistance of counsel argument lurking in the 1989 Maryland capital murder case, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Defense Counsel had fallen short of the prevailing professional standards of that particular State [with a case that had an objectively unreasonable State Court decision], in the failure of Defense Counsel to exercise professional judgment when conducting a reasonable investigation, in order to properly prepare and present evidence of the client’s dysfunctional [family] background [filled with severe physical and sexual abuse], thus violating the Sixth Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel.) The case against Jodi Arias was not tried like that of the Wiggins case, in that the Trier of Fact in Arizona is always the same in all three stages, whereas the Wiggins case in Maryland had a Judge for the Trial and a Jury for the sentencing [in a bifurcated proceeding], of which a Jury would not have seen or heard the same evidence as the Judge.

The Wiggins vs. Smith case is inapplicable to the Jodi Arias case (unless the criminal lawyer, WURMI, is threatening an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against himself [and, of course against his partner, WILLNOT.) The State has done nothing to prejudice the defense of Jodi Arias. On the contrary, the State of Arizona has done what it could to provide the best defense money can buy, when affording for the defendant a Mitigation Specialist, an Investigator, a paralegal, expert witnesses (that included two highly qualified, experienced, clinical, forensic psychologists, and a social worker with a specialty in domestic violence), and two Defense Counsel at taxpayer expense. The State has also paid for all of the expenses and costs [since, early-on, the defendant had been determined to be an indigent]. The State [unlike in the Wiggins case, where counsel failed to discover mitigators] has provided every opportunity for Defense Counsel to find a mitigator. The State has never been in disagreement with the presentment of any mitigating factors in the Jodi Arias case, and has never prevented the criminal lawyers from investigating any mitigating factors involving the family of Jodi Arias or any other person that had ever been involved with Jodi Arias. Additionally, in a showing of good faith, the State [through the allowance of the Court and other instruments] has provided the defense team almost two million dollars [of taxpayer money] for the defense of Jodi Arias.

The criminal lawyers have had five years to gather enough evidence to present circumstances of mitigation factors. In spite of the State’s noninterference [with the defendant’s presentment of mitigators] and willingness for the defendant to present whatever the criminal lawyer would want to as a mitigating factor, it now seems as though the criminal lawyers (using a case that is geared to an ineffective assistance of counsel argument, that is not plead in the Jodi Arias case) are stating they are unable to fully present a case and therefore the Trial must be delayed once more, whereupon they will receive even more money because of a prior arrangement. (It appears Superior Court Judge Sally Duncan [either] misread the Law of Rule 6.5 (b) & (c), Ariz.R.Crim.P., and of Rule 6.7 (a) & (b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., [or assisted in the commission of a possible Hobb’s Act or RICO violation] when making an Order that payment would be made to the criminal lawyer at an hourly rate, with an above-scale fee, without regard to the intent of the Law — to total an exorbitant amount in compensation, that grows-and-grows every time a continuance is granted that adds a greater amount of time to the case and reasons for more-and-more billing). This arrangement seems to make the criminal lawyer file spurious Motions to take up the Court’s time (and add more money to the pot). It seems that the criminal lawyer has lost sight of the fact that this is a case wherein the Laws and Rule are to be used, and these Laws and Rules should be used correctly (or else there is credence to the comment made by the prosecutor that certain criminal lawyers should return to Law School [maybe to learn due diligence, or maybe to brush up on the Code of Ethics, or maybe just to take lawyering 101]). In any event, the prosecutor would not have to make an argument about a Motion that has used nothing but Case Law to divert attention from the fact that the Law and Rule already prove out differently.

In one Georgia case, of Green vs. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1979), [involving the rape and murder of an abducted convenience store clerk, by two persons acting in concert, who had been indicted together, but tried separately], the claim had been made that the exclusion (during the [first phase] Trial Proceeding) of hearsay testimony ([as inadmissible under Georgia Law] that would have been a highly relevant issue in the second [and last] phase, the Punishment Proceeding) was in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and prohibited as cruel and unusual by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In order to figure out the LAW of the case, the Court first had to agree with the fact that (under the prevailing Law of Georgia, regarding Georgia’s Code of Evidence, more specifically the 1978 version of Section 38-301 that would apply to that case) the State could use the hearsay statement in the case of one of the accused [that worked towards his conviction because the statement was an admission of his participation in the crime], but the defense for the accomplice could not benefit from the hearsay statement in the case against the codefendant [tried separately]. To decide otherwise [in a violation of a sovereign State’s Rights] would be to supersede the State’s Code of Evidence, when the Federal Constitution and Court Rules would not have allowed the overstep of the power of the Federal Government, which would have been beyond the scope of authority for the Supreme Court.

[Not yet Chief] Justice Rehnquist, referred to the maxim that “hard cases make bad law” [in the case of Green vs. Georgia], when offering an example of what he believed was becoming the wayward route of the Court, when misusing or misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment [in a way that would violate the Rights of Victims, by extra-judicial bestowal of added safeguards towards the Rights of an accused, sometimes to the exclusion of any Right held by a Victim of the crime perpetrated by the accused]. Nonetheless, the majority opinion of the Court was that the hearsay Rule (in Georgia, although on the books and valid) should not have been applied mechanistically [in the capital case of rape/murder of a young woman who had also been abducted from her place of employment] in a way that would defeat the ends of Justice for a vile person accused of the capital crime. Thus and so, it seems that the States have been put on Notice, that to avoid the retrying of a case, because of the vacating of sentences in death penalty cases that the Supreme Court [possessing a more liberal slant on the Rights of the accused defendants] should decide, States have to let criminal lawyers get away with overreaching in certain instances. It seems that there must be total acceptance that there must not be preclusion of anything the defendant considers evidence, so that the defendant can provide everything under the sun to claim as a mitigating factor. So, the State of Arizona has acted in a manner that permits any amount of circumstances that the defendant can establish as mitigating factors.

Regardless of the reliance [by the criminal lawyers] on the rape/murder Georgia case, there has not been any preclusion of evidence in the Jodi Arias case, and the criminal lawyer’s use of this particular case is baffling [although not quite that confusing if this were an appellate brief arguing against the death penalty, AFTER the defendant was convicted and sentenced to death]. In any case, the criminal lawyer should know his limitations. In addition, the Court appointment of this particular criminal lawyer is for the case at the Superior Court. If there are appellate issues, the case is most often handed off to a criminal lawyer more experienced in the matter, which criminal lawyer is seldom the same Court appointment that handled the Criminal Proceedings of the case at the level of the Superior Court. Although the criminal lawyer has the duty to file the Notice of Appeal at the Trial Court, per the instruction of Rule 6.3(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P., the Court appointed Trial Court lawyer has no allowance to file appellate briefs [at the close of the case at the Trial Court level]. A person convicted in a capital case and sentenced to death is given an Appellate Court criminal lawyer, if the defendant is entitled to the Court appointment, per Rule 6.6, Ariz.R.Crim.P., with the lawyer’s qualifications set out in Rule 6.8 (c) or (d), Ariz.R.Crim.P.. Furthermore, the argument about the mitigators that have not been presented is a premature argument, and, even if there were an argument, the argument would NOT be for the Superior Court (and especially NOT a Judge that is NOT a Trier of Fact). A.R.S. Section 13-755 and A.R.S. Section 13-756 describe the action required to be taken by the Arizona Supreme Court on a review of a death penalty sentence. Not only is there a review as to whether the Superior Court abused its discretion in finding aggravating circumstances, but the Arizona Supreme Court also independently reviews the Superior Court’s findings regarding the aggravators as well as the mitigators.

donchais :
Bad storms here past few weeks and death by cicadas…bear with me…trying to work thru it!!!

If I may ask, where r u located Donchais?

donchais

06/28/2013 at 12:23 pm

NJ

Kathy A.

06/29/2013 at 10:57 pm

Where in NJ? I lived in Wildwood for awhile. Speaking of weather, it was 110 here yesterday, 113 today. Supposed to have thunderstorms tomorrow afternoon (I’m doing a rain dance). Welcome back to everyone.

donchais

06/30/2013 at 6:38 am

North, up by Liberty International Airport.

Moon

06/28/2013 at 3:27 pm

Jad…

TY again for your information. I don’t have facebook, but perhaps someone here does and can forward your information to the Alexander family.

In addition, Wendy Murphy has a website.. I think it is WendyMurphyLaw.com. Perhaps you can contact her and send your posts to her?

Family of Law

06/29/2013 at 1:41 am

I nearly gave up, and to my happy surprise, the sandbox is back up and running! I’m tickled pink!!!! Hello all! I was worried that Donchais had had enough of our sandbox! Phew!!!! A heartfelt thanks to you Mamma Donchais for all of your diligence and love! I’ve missed you all!

Ci Ci's Circle

06/29/2013 at 12:47 pm

Thought you might be interested to read an article that was posted 3/2013 in a Redding, CA news article about JackAss and Yreka’s response to their celebrity. I’ve left out the section, “The Trial”, since we’ve all lived that and know it inside and out. Just a little human interest story we found via the Twitter links provided by one of the twitters:

During her 16th day on the stand Wednesday, 32-year-old Jodi Ann Arias calmly answered more than 100 questions submitted by the jurors in her murder trial.

Arias, formerly of Yreka, is accused of the June 2008 savage murder of her boyfriend, 30-year-old Travis Alexander, of Mesa, Ariz. Police and prosecutors have said Arias shot Alexander in the head, stabbed him nearly 30 times and cut his throat from ear to ear. Friends found Alexander’s body in his shower days later.

Arias was arrested in September 2008, and her trial began Jan. 2 after years of legal posturing on both sides.

Proceedings have focused mostly on the sordid details of the sex life Arias and Alexander shared and the conflict between the woman’s initial claim of a home invasion and her eventual admission that she killed her one-time boyfriend in what she now says was self-defense.

The death penalty case has grabbed national headlines in what many media outlets have dubbed one of the most talked-about cases since Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter in Florida.

Few details have come to light about Arias and her life before meeting Alexander. Much of her family still lives in Yreka, although they’ve been publicly silent on Arias and what impact the trial is having on the community.

In stark contrast to the national attention paid to the case, the rest of Yreka is seemingly following the family’s lead — few, if any, are discussing the case in public.

Silent city

Originally a gold rush boomtown, Yreka sits at the northern edge of the Shasta Valley, tucked into an idyllic scene of sprawling farm and ranch lands northwest of Mt. Shasta that many would describe as serene.

It’s a town that’s either aging or growing younger, depending on which way you drive.

Yreka’s southern edge seems new, ripe with shopping centers, hotels and drive-thru fast-food restaurants. The College of the Siskiyous maintains a campus nearby as retailers hope to pull in traffic from Interstate 5.

Driving north, the town shows its age with old shops adorning Main Street.

Downtown shoots west on Miner Street near the city’s northern edge. Lining about four blocks are shops as old as some can remember — stationery, hardware, antique stores, restaurants and more sit on the same street as local police and fire stations.

More than a dozen business owners, employees and Yreka citizens declined to talk about the case. Many said they knew nothing about the trial or Arias family; others said they didn’t want to speak publicly about it, and a few simply said nothing.

At the Yreka Chamber of Commerce, administrative assistant Susan Dickison offered a theory on the silence in the community: the murder didn’t happen locally, or even in California, so exposure has been limited to media coverage.

“I’m sure everybody knows about it. I have no doubt about that,” Dickison said.

Her office sits just across Main Street from Daddy O’s Diner, a restaurant opened last year by William and Sandy Arias, Jodi’s parents.

At Yreka High School, where Arias attended before dropping out after her junior year, faculty and staff are likewise tight-lipped.

“Our teachers are instructed not to comment” said Shasta Odbert, administrative assistant for the Yreka Union High School District.

The silence leaves many of the details of Arias’ life shrouded in mystery beyond what has been released during her trial.

Who is Jodi Arias?

The petite, soft-spoken woman with delicate features at the center of trial, Arias seems ill-suited to carry out the brutal murder of which she’s accused.

Arias has attempted to explain the killing as an act of self-defense while prosecutors have said the murder was the coldblooded act of a jilted former lover.

Either way, the case tells the story of a relationship turned sour, then deadly.

Arias was born in Salinas, and her family later settled in Yreka. She lived in Palm Desert in Riverside County when she met Alexander in September 2006 at a conference in Las Vegas, the Huffington Post reported. They forged an instant connection and exchanged thousands of emails and phone calls.

Arias converted to Mormonism for Alexander just two months later, and the couple dated on and off for the next year, maintaining a mostly physical relationship.

Arias had blonde hair during much of the relationship, although in the more than four years since her arrest, her hair has darkened and she’s taken to wearing glasses with rounded frames.

At one point she lived with her grandparents in a three-bedroom house that sits on a street lined with “No Parking” signs that dead-ends into a driveway. The home was the site of her 2008 arrest by Mesa, Ariz., police and Siskiyou County sheriff’s deputies.

The white house with blue trim is still home to Sonny and Caroline Allen, who declined to speak about the case or their granddaughter.

“I don’t want to talk about it,” Caroline Allen politely said last week before closing her door.

The family as a whole has so far rebuffed attempts from reporters seeking comment on the case or more information on Arias herself.

Other members of Arias’ family live south of the center of town in another white, single-story house on Oregon Street. The front door faces north, away from the street, and a small chain-link fence separates the sidewalk from the front yard. A red-and-white classic Cadillac sits just off a paved driveway in gravel.

The family restaurant opened last year. Attempts to reach family members there also were unsuccessful.

Arias herself hasn’t shied away from publicity since her arrest.

“God knows I’m innocent,” she told the Arizona Republic after her 2008 arrest.

She was interviewed by “Inside Edition” the same month, admitting for the first time that she was present during Alexander’s killing.

“No jury is going to convict me … because I’m innocent, and you can mark my words on that one — no jury will convict me,” Arias told “Inside Edition.”

She also was interviewed by “48 Hours” in 2009 and a year later won an “American Idol”-style Christmas carol contest for pretrial inmates at Maricopa County jail held by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, CBS News reported.

Arias would go on to seek to defend herself during the trial. Judge Sherry Stephens granted the request, which was later rescinded by an overwhelmed Arias.

janeto

06/29/2013 at 6:53 pm

Sickening write up! Just HAD to throw in her American Idol winner in jail! Boy doesnt that just PROVE to the whole world she’s just a “good girl”, and innocent doncha know! Geesh!

Happy Canada Day to all my fellow canuckleheads and early happy Independence Day thoughts to all my American friends.

Anniefreeze

07/01/2013 at 10:43 pm

Im with Beans. Happy summer Canada day and 4 th of July everyone. Glad to see some trial watchers are still at it. Cheers

Anniefreeze

07/01/2013 at 10:49 pm

JAD. Your post caught my attention. I think your post is brilliant but I’m not. What was your finding regarding the rights due to the victim. Please forgive me but all the legal quoting and brackets left me very confused. Are you saying that the defense overstepped their rights and the prosecution does not see this error or fact?

Kristy

07/01/2013 at 11:09 pm

I hope AZ gives Jodi the sentence she deserves for killing Travis. She’s a cold blooded killer that would kill again, if let out.

Great to hear that!! Does anyone know if it will be televised? Oh yeah, happy Canada day my canuckle head peeps! Happy Independence Day my fellow American peeps!!! Be safe & no fires please! (For those of us in drought situations) I’ll be sitting in my lawn chair with my water hose handy, just in case some idiots decide to ignore the conditions! Miss you guys!!!!

MMD

07/03/2013 at 7:30 am

Thank you Janet and Happy 4th to all of you south of the border. Everyone stay safe please!!!!

MMD

07/03/2013 at 7:29 am

Thanks for letting us know. Maybe this means that the retrial will actually start on the 18th as previously scheduled……………oops sorry, I forgot, we talking Judge Stephens, my bad 🙄

We need to send in a Florida judge, any one, in to run this final stage!!!

donchais

07/05/2013 at 12:29 pm

Nah, gonna be months…jury selection hasn’t even been scheduled yet!

MMD

07/05/2013 at 2:47 pm

Donchais – are you watching this bs ME cross examination that I am watching?

if you’re referring to the Z trial, i am, but didn’t want to comment as i’m seriously pissed & need time to compose myself before i say anything i may regret later.(plus i don’t want to get mom mad at me for going off topic)